Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Street Trees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues Sixteenth Street tree-removal appeal after agencies commit to replacement plan
Summary
The Board of Appeals continued Richard Hall’s appeal over the removal of two ficus on Sixteenth Street to Feb. 27 after San Francisco Public Works and SFMTA representatives described replacement species, funding and contractor obligations; Urban Forestry committed to replace the two trees within 90 days of removal and SFMTA said contractors must provide three replacement trees for each removed.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Feb. 20 continued an appeal over the planned removal of two street trees on Sixteenth Street to Feb. 27 after hearing commitments from city departments about replacement size, species and timing.
Chris Buck, urban forester for San Francisco Public Works, told the board the two removed trees would be replanted as 36-inch box Magnolia grandiflora (Samuel Summer) where overhead lines do not conflict and that SFMTA and Public Works have funds to complete replacements. Buck said Public Works will replant the two subject trees with its own funds and committed that replacements for those trees would occur within three months (90 days) of removal: "We will commit to replacing the trees within 3 months of the removal of the trees," he said.
Pran Maliki, the Sixteenth Street Improvement Project manager for SFMTA, described the project’s safety goals — new bulb-outs, traffic islands and signals — and said the two trees were flagged because they present hazards in wet or windy conditions and because residents reported feeling unsafe under dense canopy. Maliki said removal and a 3-to-1 replacement ratio are part of the contractor’s contract: "Removal and 3 to 1 replacement of it is part of their contract," she said, adding that sequencing of planting is at the contractor’s discretion but that replacements must occur during the project timeline.
Appellant Richard Hall urged the board to treat the two trees as part of the larger set of 61 trees linked to the SFMTA project and asked the board to require larger, faster replacements (he asked for 48-inch boxes where feasible) and to direct SFMTA and Public Works to hold a community hearing on timing and replacement size.
Commissioners said they lacked a full board to attach a condition (four votes would be required) and several members emphasized the need for a formal, written guarantee rather than an oral commitment. Vice President Rick Swig moved to continue the appeal to the board’s Feb. 27 meeting so the full board could consider imposing a condition; the motion carried. The continuation places the appellant at the beginning of the Feb. 27 calendar so the board can reconsider any conditions, including a 90-day replacement requirement.
Next steps: The matter returns to the Board of Appeals on Feb. 27; the board asked staff to make the departments available to answer follow-up questions at that hearing.
